Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Monaghan

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep. Royalbroil 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Monaghan

Patricia Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer who fails

WP:SPA who edits nearly exclusively to promote his financial interests in the Starwood Festival, by writing bogus articles about people who were vaguely associated with it. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Keep She has published a lot. It is not clear if any of it is important or makes her
WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. Why was
WP:FOUR) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • KEEP She does not fail the WP:AUTHOR. She is regarded an an important figure in the earth based spirituality movement, goddess movement, woman movement, and has been cited in books and literature by others see above by Rosencoment. She is know for significantly adding to the pathos of area in which she wrote. Many people today would not have the knowledge they do had her books not be published. With 15 books she has a collective body of work that has had multiple independent articles or reviews. I think only one of the 5 listed criteria are required to be considered notable. She was and still is highly regarded by her peers and those in the community. That someone who originally started the article did so for something that was deemed inappropriate, doesn't discount the work this woman created and shared with the community that is interested in the subject she wrote about. Again she had 15 publications. Still available in major book retailers. These publications are not self published, and therefore just a point of tooting someones own horn. She is a published author and as such deserves to have her page left on Wikipedia so those that come behind, read one of her books, can find a bit more information on this powerful woman who gave to us. Sampling that her peers do hold her in high regard:
* One of the leaders of the contemporary earth spirituality movement [2]
* We are sad to mark the passing of Goddess scholar, poet, author, and women’s spirituality elder [3]
* a pioneer in the contemporary women’s spirituality movement, and author [4]
* Goddess movement pioneer, author, teacher, poet [5]
WebWeaver64 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (new rationale below) Every source currently in the article is primary or unreliable. See
    talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Green Cardamon, I do not believe there is any connection between
Llewellyn Publications (AKA Llewellyn Worldwide), perhaps the most prominent publisher in the fields of Magic, the Occult, Parapsychology and Paganism. I can find no evidence they even know each other (although I found an Amazon.com review of one of Llywelyn's books by Monaghan). Also, I think you might find more reviews of The Book of Goddesses and Heroines, just one of her better-known books, considered an important reference book in the field. Also, before you decide there is no Paul Gruchow Award, you might want to do I bit of research. You can start with his Wikipedia article.Rosencomet (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok thank you for the clarification on Llywelyn vs Llywelyn. Your suggestion to search on Book of Goddesses led to an interesting reliable source in the Anchorage Daily News, added. I'll work on this more later, might change my vote if I can find more reliable sourcing. --
talk) 22:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Found and added additional sources that are enough to suggest notability. (BTW the article said she won a Pushcart Prize for her book of poems, but that's not right, Pushcart's are for single poems or essays; her CV is online[7] and confirms, but need reliable source.) --
talk) 08:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Be careful of
talk) 19:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • KEEP Patricia Monaghan is a relevant author to the three million wiccans and countless other pagans in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberMoon612 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as stated above she meets
    WP:GNG in any case. The sources (patheos and wildhunt) may be on an unusual subject, but they are reliable and significant sources in that subject area. Rosencommon is not 'a notorious wikispammer' and Qworty has been asked not to use this language againElen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The request to delete this article appears to be part of a concerted attempt by Qworty to delete articles by specifically women who have been considered significant contributors to the larger Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community. <http://www.witchschool.com/forum/topics/super-important-wikipedia-pagan-pages-are-under-attack-deletion-o> Regardless of Qworty's personal views, proclivities or inclinations, each community is free to choose for itself who is considered a significant spokesperson. That there is a large Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community present in the United States, Europe and internationally simply cannot be doubted. Numerous scholarly works have been written about this community including the now famous Drawing Down the Moon (Adler, new edition 2006) and The Triumph of the Moon (Hutton, 2001). Neo-Pagans and witches are definitely more than a few 'women leaping about naked in the woods,' (to paraphrase a Qworty image that has been circulating). I wrote about this community myself in my book New Religions (2005). Patricia Monaghan's 15 published titles, several of which have won regional or subject based rewards and the constant presence of her texts in independent and specialty booksellers readily displays her importance to the larger Neo-Pagan community. If they claim her as significant, then she is, regardless of relative size or demographic importance of that said community. I write this as a non-Pagan who is interested in new religious movements, has a PhD in American Cultural Studies and who has studied Neo-Pagans, among others for over two decades. Qworty can contact me directly if he/she really wants to debate the matter, I may be contacted via the Wikpedia email function. In the meantime, while the article might benefit from some rewriting and reference sourcing, Monaghan's value to the Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community cannot be doubted and the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHAM09 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the 2-vol The Encyclopedia of Celtic Myth and Folklore by Facts on File, a major reference publisher. That's sufficient to shown notability as an author/expert in the field. I find it difficult to judge the other questions raised. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patricia_Monaghan&oldid=1089092903"